The ethics of ... death

[Bedrockgames]

For me I am more concerned about internal consistency and nothing jumping out at me right away as unbelievable. But in the case of the latter, so long as there an internal explanation it's fine by me. I am not interested in cracking the physics of the world after the fact. However is something as common sensual and obvious as cause and effect isn't there or if fire doesn't cause paper to burn, and there is no explanation, I am going to notice on the spot. Stuff that takes advanced degrees to even notice, or requires serious consideration after the fact, doesn't bother me. Also there are things that just won't match the real world because of setting assumptions (if you have gods of rather and fertility, agriculture and climate could function much differently than our world (arguably they ought to in that case).

also knowing what genre you are in, whether you are going for a more naturalistic regular world approach, etc is all important (most disagreements over stuff like this in D&D seem to arise out of groups approaching it from different genre angles).

 

[N'raac]

Also, another IMC factor is that I use spontaneous divine casting, meaning that clerics actually have to select spells known. This makes finding a cleric or a scroll to actually cast the spell considerably more difficult.

Backing up a minute, this changes the dynamic previously suggested considerably. We can flee the identified SoD monster, but we have no ability to swap out the cleric's spell load for appropriate protections. I guess we can buy or commission scrolls, but that definitely adds time, so if we're under any time pressure, that may not be an option. Alternatively, if the cleric has the protective spells on his spontaneous list, then we're in little danger if we can ID the monster. One of the more effective Clerics I've seen in play had two combat-ready domains, and Domain Spontaneity twice. He could swap out (up to his Turn Undead attempts) any spell for a combat spell (domain spell) or (unlimited) curative spell. So he could load up with situational spells - if the situation looked like it would not come up, they got swapped.

Even in a high-magic D&D world, I think trading a life for another is a pretty special case. I also don't know whether a good deity would allow these things. It isn't enumerated anywhere, but I think there's a good case to say that, if an unwilling sacrifice is used to power it, Raise Dead should acquire the Evil descriptor and be forbidden to some clerics.

An LG Cleric may well believe in "an eye for an eye; a life for a life". Again, it's OK to kill the Orc to prevent him killing the farmer, but it's not OK to kill him to Raise the farmer he killed? Either one results in a dead Orc and a live farmer.

I don't know that being able to make moral judgements is a prerequisite of having a soul. This is mostly me talking about souls; the rules make it clear that they exist but don't exactly talk much about them. I would think that many humans with low mental ability scores might have a very limited ability to make moral judgments, but they still have souls.

I consider the ability to discern between right and wrong to be a key to "a soul". In a D&D world, they are commodities for lower planar beings, who need to turn these soul to evil to "win". How do they corrupt those who cannot make moral judgements? Where do their souls go?

Under the core rules, a scenario can unfold where an evil cleric tries to raise a good character to use him as a prisoner or something, the good character says no, and the 5000 gp diamond is wasted because the spell fails. I would carry the same principle forward.

But have we not established that the value of a life (to a good character) far outstrips that of a diamond?

Maybe. Maybe not. If the character talked with an elder he trusts beforehand about the value of life and the elder decides that (as discussed in previous posts) the life of a young hero is worth more than his last years, maybe the good character is honored by the sacrifice and accepts it. Conversely, a charismatic hero might have fans willing to give their lives for him, and he might decide that using them that way is wrong (though as stated, said fan is likely dead either way). These examples are malleable though. In some interpretations, suicide might simply be evil under the "respect for life" definition, making raise dead a guaranteed evil spell.

That second example is scary - how many fans throw themselves on the sword hoping to be "the one" that his hero accepts. Not a pro or a con to the structure, just an observation.

To that guaranteed evil - "respect for life" seems like it could easily have a different connotation when returning a fallen person is actually possible.

Just warming up for my ethics conference this week. I'm guessing that raising the dead won't be on the agenda, but there will be some issues that require a lot of thought to reach no definitive answer.

One problem with ethics is that, even where there is a pretty easy answer in theory, the answer in practice is commonly a lot tougher to implement. Business ethics classes, for example, always have me juxtaposing the ease of knowing one rejects the bribe, sacrifices their job/career, etc. to do the right thing, thus driving self and family into bankruptcy/poverty, on the exam. Doing the right thing in real life tends to be a lot tougher, even when "the right thing" is comparatively easy to identify. As you note, often even the theoretical answer is difficult to establish.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Backing up a minute, this changes the dynamic previously suggested considerably. We can flee the identified SoD monster, but we have no ability to swap out the cleric's spell load for appropriate protections. I guess we can buy or commission scrolls, but that definitely adds time, so if we're under any time pressure, that may not be an option. Alternatively, if the cleric has the protective spells on his spontaneous list, then we're in little danger if we can ID the monster. One of the more effective Clerics I've seen in play had two combat-ready domains, and Domain Spontaneity twice. He could swap out (up to his Turn Undead attempts) any spell for a combat spell (domain spell) or (unlimited) curative spell. So he could load up with situational spells - if the situation looked like it would not come up, they got swapped.

So, IMC, "retreat and look for the most useful spells in the spellbook and memorize them tomorrow and come back" is not really a viable tactic. However "retreat and cast whatever buff spells we do know (Death Ward included), then come back a minute or two later" works fine. "Retreat and buy a wand of Death Ward" is a last resort.

If the monster is simply wandering around open space, there is often not much reason to kill it anyway, so the party may just want to avoid taking on a Medusa if they're concerned about the risk. If the party wanted to get rid of the monster to prevent it from killing harmless innocents in the area, then they might come back. If there's time pressure, they might have to charge in. But at least they'll probably charge in knowing what the risk is and how to mitigate it (if possible). Again, most SoD monsters below CR 10 allow a character to avoid making a save completely if he so chooses. Another IMC houserule variable is action points. Simply knowing what your saving throw is against influences your decision to action point the save.

An LG Cleric may well believe in "an eye for an eye; a life for a life". Again, it's OK to kill the Orc to prevent him killing the farmer, but it's not OK to kill him to Raise the farmer he killed? Either one results in a dead Orc and a live farmer.

Life for a life = No. That does not, in my view, fall within the LG alignment. LN neutral character perhaps. And yes, one might question how different the two orc scenarios are, but the same thing comes up in real "value of life" debates. For example, some people draw a strong line between physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, while others say that both are absolutely wrong and others say that both are justifiable. Legally, we draw lines between murder, manslaughter, and homicide in self-defense, as well as numerous subdivisions, and we have capital punishment. Context matters, to some people some of the time at least.

I consider the ability to discern between right and wrong to be a key to "a soul". In a D&D world, they are commodities for lower planar beings, who need to turn these soul to evil to "win". How do they corrupt those who cannot make moral judgements? Where do their souls go?

I would say that such souls go wherever your cosmology dictates. Many souls die without having ever made a moral decision. What's the infant mortality rate in D&D? To me, the D&D "soul" concept is pretty broad.

But have we not established that the value of a life (to a good character) far outstrips that of a diamond?

Of course. I'm merely identifying a mechanical precedent for how my houseruled spell works.

That second example is scary - how many fans throw themselves on the sword hoping to be "the one" that his hero accepts. Not a pro or a con to the structure, just an observation.

People are that way. "Fan" is derivative of "fanatic". The implications are scary. If one of our modern heroes was in a severe accident and needed an organ transplant...

To that guaranteed evil - "respect for life" seems like it could easily have a different connotation when returning a fallen person is actually possible.

Valid enough. We all have sociocultural influences on our own moral views. It's hard to dissociate from those when talking about D&D morality. If you're running a game in pre-Columbian Central America (or Maztica, perhaps?), sacrifices and trading of lives are probably accepted without a second thought.

One problem with ethics is that, even where there is a pretty easy answer in theory, the answer in practice is commonly a lot tougher to implement.

The kinds of ethics I typically deal with are either in biomedical/psychological research or clinical medicine. Modern medicine (like magic, almost) often gives us scenarios where it is difficult to even intellectualize right and wrong, let alone implement it.

 

[N'raac]

Even in a high-magic D&D world, I think trading a life for another is a pretty special case. I also don't know whether a good deity would allow these things. It isn't enumerated anywhere, but I think there's a good case to say that, if an unwilling sacrifice is used to power it, Raise Dead should acquire the Evil descriptor and be forbidden to some clerics.

I suspect if Raising is an Evil (or even morally questionable) act, the Clone spell becomes a lot more popular. But that has its own issues.

So, IMC, "retreat and look for the most useful spells in the spellbook and memorize them tomorrow and come back" is not really a viable tactic. However "retreat and cast whatever buff spells we do know (Death Ward included), then come back a minute or two later" works fine. "Retreat and buy a wand of Death Ward" is a last resort.

Wand or scroll... Spellbook is still OK, if you have a wizard, but the cleric has many of the very situational protective spells that mitigate or remove the SoD risk. Fall back certainly works, if the spells are available, but I can`t see a lot of clerics selecting very situational spells (unless you provide them a lot more breadth than Sorcerers in spells known).

If the monster is simply wandering around open space, there is often not much reason to kill it anyway, so the party may just want to avoid taking on a Medusa if they're concerned about the risk. If the party wanted to get rid of the monster to prevent it from killing harmless innocents in the area, then they might come back. If there's time pressure, they might have to charge in. But at least they'll probably charge in knowing what the risk is and how to mitigate it (if possible). Again, most SoD monsters below CR 10 allow a character to avoid making a save completely if he so chooses. Another IMC houserule variable is action points. Simply knowing what your saving throw is against influences your decision to action point the save.

Seems like a lot of your dismissal of problems with SoD effects are based on your house rules, rather than the RAW. As to the first point, if the monster is simply wandering around open space minding its own business, why are the adventurers attacking it if they have that respect for life. Oh, I`d never kill it to restore a fallen comrade, but killing it for its loot is fine!

Life for a life = No. That does not, in my view, fall within the LG alignment.

I`d see it within LG more so than within NG or CG. But then, my view is that NG would have the greatest respect for life, its devotion to Good being constrained by neither adherence to Law nor Chaos. I don`t see the corners of the alignment square as the pure alignments, but the sides, which are devoted to only a single ideal.

And yes, one might question how different the two orc scenarios are, but the same thing comes up in real "value of life" debates. For example, some people draw a strong line between physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, while others say that both are absolutely wrong and others say that both are justifiable. Legally, we draw lines between murder, manslaughter, and homicide in self-defense, as well as numerous subdivisions, and we have capital punishment. Context matters, to some people some of the time at least.

All true - however, the fact we have spent thousands of years grappling with these issues, to come to no truly definitive conclusions, makes it tough to see how an entire alignment would agree absolutely with a single interpretation. I would expect that various LG worldviews could value the Justice of victim restoration over the Good of respect for the criminal's life (especially when respect for the life of the fallen supports the assertion that trading one life for the other makes that aspect break even). There are nine alignments, but hundreds or thousands of applications of those alignments, and I would not expect all Lawful Good, or even all Good, beings to concur on what approach is most appropriate. [ASIDE: Funny how we view all those Good people generally agreeing on most issues and working together, despite the variance between Law and Chaos, but we don't envision Lawful characters of various Good and Evil gradations working together against the common foe of Chaos, nor the opposite).

Valid enough. We all have sociocultural influences on our own moral views. It's hard to dissociate from those when talking about D&D morality. If you're running a game in pre-Columbian Central America (or Maztica, perhaps?), sacrifices and trading of lives are probably accepted without a second thought.

Very true - and I think the interpretations of "good" and "evil" commonly need to be evaluated in light of the specific culture the game works to portray. The typical D&D game accepts that "violence as a solution" is not wholly inconsistent with Good alignment. An Aztec game would have to accept human sacrifice, which would be tough for our modern sensibilities to accept.

The kinds of ethics I typically deal with are either in biomedical/psychological research or clinical medicine. Modern medicine (like magic, almost) often gives us scenarios where it is difficult to even intellectualize right and wrong, let alone implement it.

Very true. In fact, with transplants, the question of trading one life for another becomes more and more real. I worked with a lady who gave up a kidney for a relative - not guaranteed lethal, but not without risk either. We would accept that, but I doubt we would permit a surgeon to transplant her heart into a sick child. We have problems with voluntary donations motivated by financial reward as well. Similar issues seem just as relevant in the "life for a life" ability to raise the dead.

Personally, I play the game as an escape from my real-life issues, but I think we all struggle with accepting certain things in-game that we know don't work in the "real world". Our ability to suspend disbelief only goes so far.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I suspect if Raising is an Evil (or even morally questionable) act, the Clone spell becomes a lot more popular. But that has its own issues.

And more weird real life parallels.

Wand or scroll... Spellbook is still OK, if you have a wizard, but the cleric has many of the very situational protective spells that mitigate or remove the SoD risk. Fall back certainly works, if the spells are available, but I can`t see a lot of clerics selecting very situational spells (unless you provide them a lot more breadth than Sorcerers in spells known).

Wizards can do this, yes, but they don't know their entire spell list, so cherry-picking spells is not as easy.

As far as how clerics work, they don't have a ton of spells, but they tend to take some niche spells because, unlike arcane casters, magic is not the only useful thing they can do. The increased rarity of these spells overall is appealing, however.

I`d see it within LG more so than within NG or CG. But then, my view is that NG would have the greatest respect for life, its devotion to Good being constrained by neither adherence to Law nor Chaos. I don`t see the corners of the alignment square as the pure alignments, but the sides, which are devoted to only a single ideal.

To me, alignments are cumulative, which makes LG a small niche. That is, to be Lawful Good, one has to be Good enough to be Neutral Good and Lawful enough to be Lawful Neutral. I can diagram my conceptualization of this in a way that makes it clearer, but can't really post that (ENW telestrator?). Of course, that's just my interpretation.

All true - however, the fact we have spent thousands of years grappling with these issues, to come to no truly definitive conclusions, makes it tough to see how an entire alignment would agree absolutely with a single interpretation.

That is difficult. The moral absolutism that is to some extent explicit in the rules does not work if you think too much about it. And those of us that play games of imagination do tend to think a lot. That's why I prefer an approach like d20 Modern's allegiances where each individual defines what he or she stands for.

[ASIDE: Funny how we view all those Good people generally agreeing on most issues and working together, despite the variance between Law and Chaos, but we don't envision Lawful characters of various Good and Evil gradations working together against the common foe of Chaos, nor the opposite).

I sometimes do the latter. Good vs Evil is more classic and is repeated in many cultures throughout history, while Order vs Chaos feels more modern to me. Some of my players sometimes take law vs chaos pretty seriously.

Personally, I play the game as an escape from my real-life issues, but I think we all struggle with accepting certain things in-game that we know don't work in the "real world". Our ability to suspend disbelief only goes so far.

That's a perfectly good and probably very common philosophy of gaming: escapism. It's not mine though.

When I'm running games in modern settings, I typically engage real life issues. For example, my last two CoC games were set in the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina. Even my D&D games take on some real world issues; for example drug use and the fantasy version of the drug war has played a part in several of my games. I'm quite enamored with fiction that engages us on real world issues without reducing them to the level of polemic or allegory (as was Tolkien, among many others). I find it rewarding, if draining and sometimes difficult.

 

[N'raac]

And more weird real life parallels.

As far as how clerics work, they don't have a ton of spells, but they tend to take some niche spells because, unlike arcane casters, magic is not the only useful thing they can do. The increased rarity of these spells overall is appealing, however.

Also makes them less useful as item crafters. The extent to which I'd expect to see niche spells depends on the number of spells available. If it's like Sorcerers, I'd be reluctant to take a spell that would rarely be used - certainly not as the only spell of that level, or even one of two.

To me, alignments are cumulative, which makes LG a small niche. That is, to be Lawful Good, one has to be Good enough to be Neutral Good and Lawful enough to be Lawful Neutral. I can diagram my conceptualization of this in a way that makes it clearer, but can't really post that (ENW telestrator?). Of course, that's just my interpretation.

We still get into "very Lawful; slightly Good" and "very Good; slightly Lawful" under that model, but one can always envision the spectrum as a huge Neutral circle in the middle and only a small fringe of other alignments.

That is difficult. The moral absolutism that is to some extent explicit in the rules does not work if you think too much about it. And those of us that play games of imagination do tend to think a lot. That's why I prefer an approach like d20 Modern's allegiances where each individual defines what he or she stands for.

Nothing in the rules suggest everyone of the same alignment always agrees. In fact, I'd expect clerics of different deities with the same alignment may well disagree a lot.

I sometimes do the latter. Good vs Evil is more classic and is repeated in many cultures throughout history, while Order vs Chaos feels more modern to me. Some of my players sometimes take law vs chaos pretty seriously.

It's interesting to note the game started with only Law and Chaos, the Good/Evil axis being grafted on later, and LN/NG/NE/CN added after that (IIRC - Basic lacked them but AD&D had them).

 

[Manbearcat]

Of course they don't, its just fantasy worlds have lots of different atomic particles ... "mu-ons"

Definitely interacting via the strong interaction while "f-ons" interact via the weak interaction

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Nothing in the rules suggest everyone of the same alignment always agrees. In fact, I'd expect clerics of different deities with the same alignment may well disagree a lot.

In fact, there was an article back in the 1Ed or 2Ed days of Dragon Magazine that discussed how two Paladins might come to blows, with each on one side or another of a holy war/crusade.

If two paragons of LG can try to gut each other...

 

[JamesonCourage]

In fact, there was an article back in the 1Ed or 2Ed days of Dragon Magazine that discussed how two Paladins might come to blows, with each on one side or another of a holy war/crusade.

If two paragons of LG can try to gut each other...

I had two Paladin NPCs almost bring two different nations to war in a feud with one another. Both NPCs were very respected by the PCs/players. One Paladin barely walked the Paladin line, but never fell, while the other was very committed to the Code, but had fallen (briefly) earlier in order to protect the nation and serve the "greater good", but had redeemed himself and was a Paladin again. Both had strong influence in different nations, and when a feud began, the people backed the NPCs and voluntarily formed armies. The thing that probably stopped the war was the large neighboring elven nation between the two threatening to attack either force that attempted to cross through it without permission.

Good times. So many fun game memories...